Let those Americans who still don't get it read
Paul Craig Roberts' "US Hegemony Spawns Russian-Chinese Military Alliance."
Let them hear his message loud and clear. Those of us who are condemning the
neocons and the Bush administration for their policies are not doing so solely
because of our monumental self-defeating blunder in Iraq, which has empowered
Iran and al-Qaeda and set back the war on terror, but also because of how it
has turned the rest of the world against us. Who has been cowered by our illegal
and disastrous show of force in Iraq? How, in any way, has it served our interests
when two of the most powerful countries on earth are uniting against us? How
have our interests been advanced when so many in the world now view us as a
dangerous, self-interested, rogue state operating above international law?

~ Carl Mattioli

In
his otherwise poignant article, Roberts writes:

"Is Bush
blind to the danger that he will cause an Islamic revolution within Pakistan
that will depose the U.S. puppet and present the Middle East with an Islamic
state armed with nuclear weapons?"

Pakistan is not
in the Middle East. I assume Roberts knows that, but the connection here isn't
clear unless it is supposed to mean that Pakistan will be available for Middle
Eastern forces to use for its own devices (pun intended). Either way, I don't
get the point of this passage.

I do think
this line deserves repeating all over the virtual and real worlds:

"Americans
need to understand what the neocon Bush regime cannot: a nuclear exchange between
the U.S., Russia, and China would establish the hegemony of the cockroach."

Now that
was brilliant.

~ DJ Toman

Paul Craig
Roberts replies:

Pakistan
is Muslim. The country borders Iran and Afghanistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
If Pakistan falls into Islamist hands, the situation in the Middle East is radically
altered.

Why
is our congress just sitting by and allowing Bush to damage our reputation as
a nation? I have not seen them seriously do anything but cower at president
Bush. They have almost 70% of the American population against Bush and yet they
stand there gutless; or could it be that they just want us to think they are
against President Bush in his mindless decisions?

This
article succinctly covers a lot of ground, including Chinese (and British) history
 the Opium Wars  and even the Chinese psychology: their multifaceted
approach to complex issues (unlike Westerners who tend to seize on an idea 
revalue the RMB!  and run it to ground).

It's a well-written
and -considered piece, but the following sentences are regrettable:

"Almost
200 years ago, China played the same game with the British empire, which resulted
in the Opium Wars and the occupation of key Chinese ports. The humiliating defeats
led directly to a national leadership crisis and the disintegration of the Chinese
nation. A weak China was easy prey for Japan."

The author has
placed the onus of blame for the Opium Wars squarely upon the shoulders of Chinese
leaders who played a "game"  and lost  with the British
empire. If there's value in the multifaceted Chinese approach, we surely ought
not to ascribe a simplistic interpretation to the causes of that ruinous war
 which helped to usher in well over a century of foreign domination and
humiliation for the Chinese. Gamesmanship involves at least two players. To
ask a child's questions: What was the role of British imperialism; and, a little
deeper, human cupidity and stupidity?

There
is one Democratic candidate running for office who has a completely different
take on the United States' role in foreign affairs. Dennis Kucinich. Why do
the media and now YOU marginalize Kucinich? He is for getting out of Iraq now,
universal health care, cleaning up our environment, putting money into our infrastructure,
putting money into our schools, etc.

I am furious that
you would write as if the Democratic candidates are all the same. They are not!

Thanks
for your analysis of the top Democratic candidates and their positions on getting
the U.S. out of Iraq.

I disagree with
your assessment, however, that Richardson has no chance of getting the nomination.
Kerry got 38,000 votes in Iowa in 2004  that gave him first place and
overnight transformed the Democratic race. Richardson is polling in Iowa at
the same level John Kerry was in the summer of 2003 (and far ahead of where
Edwards was four years ago; and he finished a surprising second). Richardson
is at 12% in New Hampshire as well, only 3 points behind Edwards in the latest
poll. Richardson is a master at retail politics. The more people get to know
him, the more support he generates.

Richardson was
the only Democrat aside from Obama to show an increase in donations in the second
quarter over the first quarter of 2007. He has strong organizations in Iowa,
New Hampshire and Nevada. He has enough money on hand to run competitive races
in each of those states. Keep in mind that HRC and Obama can't risk spending
all their money on the early caucus/primary states or they'll have nothing for
Super Tuesday on February 5th.

The only governor
competing for the Democratic nomination, Richardson is uniquely positioned to
win in November 2008. Over the past 30 years four governors have won the presidency.
In the entire history of our nation, only two senators have accomplished that
feat.

I'm not predicting
Richardson will win but, assuming Al Gore doesn't run, Richardson is one of
four persons in America that will be the Democratic nominee for president.

The dominant issue
in the campaign for Democrats is the Iraq War. Of the top four Democratic candidates
Richardson has the only crystal clear, unambiguous approach that most Democrats
favor  a total withdrawal of our forces. Richardson understands the path
the U.S. must take to get out of Iraq. For the Senators (Clinton, Obama and
Edwards) our withdrawal will be a long and slow march. The intervention will
continue for years to come. Once Democrats in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire
focus on the race and this particular issue, I predict Richardson's poll numbers
will further improve.

Finally, keep
in mind, almost half of the Iowa caucus voters in 2004 didn't choose a candidate
until less than a month before the election. A lot can change between now and
election day.

~ Stephen Cassidy

I
want to congratulate you on your fine and thoughtful prose. I agree with the
article. The only point that I would like to add is that, in the primaries,
it is necessary to vote your conscience. Clearly, that should be Dennis Kucinich.
In fact, his recent strong showing during the AFL-CIO debate underscores this
reason. His concise and unequivocal answers caught on with the audience and,
indeed, even with pundits, finally. And, as a result, Kucinich suddenly is in
fourth place.

The whole point is that as Kucinich is viewed as more viable, his issues will
have to be incorporated into the Democratic platform. Indeed, I believe, for
the same reason, that Ralph Nader should have run in 2000 in the Democratic
primaries. So, even if Kucinich is not, ultimately, the candidate, his issues
are heard and the party has to incorporate his point of view in their platform.

I share your disdain
for the Democratic Leadership Council, but even their invisible hand is now
being debated openly, so I am encouraged instead of discouraged. ...

I
often tell my lefty friends that if socialism worked, then the Soviet Union
would have been a paradise!

Of course it failed.

I appreciate Mr.
Malic's article because it brings to attention a much overlooked state of affairs,
which is that Europe has turned commie. I think the reason people look the other
way is the disbelief that after all the blood spent making Europe safe for democracy,
it seems to have been a pyrrhic victory.

The American people
would have nothing to fear if their government would simply get out of the face
of the world. That would cost very little. Some wealthy and well-positioned
people are using our military for their own purposes. Why doesn't Sweden need
to do the things you suggest?

With
so much loose talk flying about over whether and when the U.S. might use nuclear
weapons on Iran and now the Northeast Frontier of Pakistan, it is shocking to
me that there has been so little discussion of the possible and probable consequences,
and so little outrage that this could even be considered.

Among the consequences
would be a breakdown of the "nuclear threshold," the unspoken rule
that nuclear weapons will only be used against other nuclear powers and only
as a last resort or if they start it; collapse of the nonproliferation regime,
as non-nuclear states conclude that nuclear weapons are essential to true national
sovereignty; massive death of civilians and panic among civilians, spreading
across national boundaries; and massive outrage of the people of the world against
the U.S. Radioactive clouds would reach the U.S., inducing panic at home. The
very fact of nuclear weapons going off in anger, even if only U.S. weapons,
would raise to a new level the government's ability to control the U.S. population
through fear. This would be true in other countries as well. The world would
be made a significantly worse place by this act.

Any candidate
for president who does not firmly declare against such an act is unworthy of
our support, no matter what their position on other issues.

It
seems to me that Prather conflates the prohibitions under the NPT, which refer
to nuclear explosives, with "military purposes," which is not mentioned
in the NPT.

It would seem
that the NPT permits, for example, enrichment of uranium to so-called "bomb
grade," provided that the enriched material is simply set aside, e.g. not
assembled into an explosively configured machine, or, also for example, provided
that the enriched material was used in a power reactor. There does not seem
to be any prohibition in the NPT against use of enriched uranium in a military
but non-explosive application  for example in a lightweight attack submarine
engine. The same observation would apply to plutonium, so far as I can see.

Indeed, it seems
that the NPT permits the manufacture of parts for, and stand-alone parts testing
of, and modeling of, and even dummy runs where an Nth gadget is tested, imploded,
without a critical charge or "pit." Nuclear explosive machines, provided
that they are not assembled as functioning devices, could be, it would seem,
developed under the NPT.

Not that doing
any of this would make any particular sense; these things are not weapons, they
are suicide pills.

To be brutally
honest with ourselves we should confront several facts. These include: There
are no significant atomic secrets. The NPT is all but gone, thanks to recent
efforts and policies of some "folks." While it may be possible to stop
an Nth party from building a factory to produce a regular supply of gadgets,
it is problematic to prevent "one-off" ad hoc devices being built with "diverted"
or "stolen" material by exceptional individuals or small skilled cadres. One
should note too that modern computers permit good hydrodynamic modeling 
something that was a real problem for the boys on the mesa back in the day.
And finally one should note that pure "bomb-grade" materials are not necessary,
even mild reactor fuel can, in a large and well designed machine, produce satisfactory
explosions.

The best way,
it seems, to avoid the unhappy aspects of these facts is to stop attacking people
and to stop stealing from them. "We" have more to lose than "they" do, and there's
no reliable defense.

Backtalk
is edited by Sam Koritz.
Click here to send
a letter. Letters become the property of Antiwar.com and may be
edited before posting. Unless otherwise requested, authors may be
identified and e-mail addresses will not be published. The views expressed
do not necessarily represent those of Antiwar.com.